Really? WTF?

- mayorofangrytown

No, not really

No, not really
- Giroux_Is_God

Then never mind.

Using analytics in hockey is so tough. A players performance depends a lot on the guys on the ice with him. It's not like baseball. Baseball has one pitcher pitching to one batter. The batter can either hit lefties or they can't. I agree you have a variety of variables that come into play like runners on base, game score and a thousand others. But really it comes down to can the batter hit against a lefty or righty or against a specific pitcher.

In hockey you have a small amount of players that make other players better. I believe current line chemistry and solid defenseman that move the puck weigh a lot more on an individual players advanced stats than his individual abilities for a vast majority of NHL players. The player is only as strong as the group he is with. So to me it is more about a specific for each player. I do not need any stats to know that Streit and MDZ are not good defensive pairing.

Advanced can be used to figure how the team is performing in certain situations. I do not see how they could be used to come up with a solution to said problem or if the solution is available internally.
- mickel25

Then never mind.

- mayorofangrytown

Did you see my post replying to MB??

Berube ain't gonna use analytics. He plays Grossmann 20 mins a game...

Let's say he does though. Now that he knows their not great 5-v-5, he can make adjustments i.e. change lines or, more likely, his system to try and fix the problem. He's an NHL coach after all. If you don't see that they struggle 5-v-5, it might be that the coach will just tell them to "work harder" or whatever adage you want without truly addressing the problem.
- NickTheKid87

It's not more likely that he's going to change his system. More likely that the execution of the system in the issue. Although there is times the system doesn't fit the players, such as with the final year of Laviolette.

Without reading any other posts yet . . . shots per game stuck out to me as odd. Remembering the Flyers teams of the past posting 40+ shots without getting wins. But thinking on it a bit more, its most likely an indication of time with the puck. Keeps coming back to good team defense. THink we have the right coach, need to work on the players a bit.

It's not more likely that he's going to change his system. More likely that the execution of the system in the issue. Although there is times the system doesn't fit the players, such as with the final year of Laviolette.
- MJL

Lavy failed to adjust. He kept doing the same thing over and over with the same outcome. The jury's still out on Berube but I don't think he's anymore than an average NHL strategist.

Without reading any other posts yet . . . shots per game stuck out to me as odd. Remembering the Flyers teams of the past posting 40+ shots without getting wins. But thinking on it a bit more, its most likely an indication of time with the puck. Keeps coming back to good team defense. THink we have the right coach, need to work on the players a bit.
- mhbst7

If you average 40+ shots a game you will win most games. Not all of them but a good amount. Like you said, 40+ shots means you have the puck a lot, not to mention more shots = more goals. Sometimes goalies stand on their heads though or the other team is clearing the crease really well and capitalizes on less chances.

My concern w/ Chief is that I'm not sure what makes his style/philosophy any different than what 20 other coaches are trying to do right now (namely copying tactics from the Wings, Kings and/or Bruins).

Unless he actually has something that sets him apart, like Babcock's Machiavellian streak, Tippett's whimsical approach to micromanagement, or Hitch's gift for adaptive XO's... the Flyers will probably still find themselves behind the curve, trying to play copy-the-last-champ.

Homer said he had a great hockey mind... I'm still waiting to see some inkling of that.
- Tomahawk

The Kings, Bruins, and Wings all play the game the right way. Why would you want Berube to be any differently as a Coach.

Lavy failed to adjust. He kept doing the same thing over and over with the same outcome. The jury's still out on Berube but I don't think he's anymore than an average NHL strategist.
- NickTheKid87

Based on what? What do you think of his Center lock forecheck?

Did you see my post replying to MB??
- Giroux_Is_God

I did.



every post should have an emoticon or a gif.

My concern w/ Chief is that I'm not sure what makes his style/philosophy any different than what 20 other coaches are trying to do right now (namely copying tactics from the Wings, Kings and/or Bruins).

Unless he actually has something that sets him apart, like Babcock's Machiavellian streak, Tippett's whimsical approach to micromanagement, or Hitch's gift for adaptive XO's... the Flyers will probably still find themselves behind the curve, trying to play copy-the-last-champ.

Homer said he had a great hockey mind... I'm still waiting to see some inkling of that.
- Tomahawk

I don't see much innovation out of Berube, or an ability to make a good team great. Let's face it, when Giroux got going, so did the Flyers.

I'm not ready to say they won in spite of Berube, but I also am not sold they won because of him, either.

I don't see much innovation out of Berube, or an ability to make a good team great. Let's face it, when Giroux got going, so did the Flyers.

I'm not ready to say they won in spite of Berube, but I also am not sold they won because of him, either.
- Jsaquella

can you give me an example of innovation - let's say from another coach - and not fred shero from 40 years ago. just wondering what you mean by this.

Let's face it, Orr's career was a result of rapid expansion and a diluted talent pool at the NHL level.
- mayorofangrytown

All good players saw their numbers elevated by expansion in the 70s. Orr however won the Calder in a 6 team league in 66-67 and no doubt would have been a star in any era.

If you average 40+ shots a game you will win most games. Not all of them but a good amount. Like you said, 40+ shots means you have the puck a lot, not to mention more shots = more goals. Sometimes goalies stand on their heads though or the other team is clearing the crease really well and capitalizes on less chances.
- NickTheKid87

Shots are nice, but scoring chances are better. I remember some old Flyers/Devils games where the Flyers would outshoot them to the tune of 40-16, and lose 4-2. It wasn't just goaltending difference, it was what the defense allowed and what the offense took. The Flyers would have 40 shots with 8-9 good scoring chances, and the Devils would have 16 shots with 12-13 good scoring chances. If you're able to work the puck around in the offensive zone and get good looks, while only giving up perimeter shots without screens, you've got a good chance.

So, if all things are equal, more shots = more goals. However, all things are far from equal.

can you give me an example of innovation - let's say from another coach - and not fred shero from 40 years ago. just wondering what you mean by this.
- hammarby31

The trap

In and of itself I always thought (and still do) that hockey's a pretty basic game. It's why I love it. It's about the talent on the ice. You either have it or you don't. A coach can make a bad team serviceable, a mediocre team good and a good team great and vice versa. You have to judge the talent level before you can judge the coach.

In my opinion, the talent level on this team is a little better than mediocre. They're a 4-8 seed. You look around the league and there are a lot of teams with similar talent level. The metro division is loaded with them. Let's see what direction the coach takes them.
- mayorofangrytown

Well said!

All good players saw their numbers elevated by expansion in the 70s. Orr however won the Calder in a 6 team league in 66-67 and no doubt would have been a star in any era.
- BiggE

Eh... I use that to abuse the editor of my paper who is a huge Brooooons fan. I don't know what made me post it today. I don't actually ascribe to the theory.

can you give me an example of innovation - let's say from another coach - and not fred shero from 40 years ago. just wondering what you mean by this.
- hammarby31

Innovation is a poor choice of words. I didn't see a ton of creativity is a better way to put my feelings. Accountability didn't run up and down the line up evenly, a lot of conservative line up choices that ended up being changed after guys were ineffective, failed to find an effective spot for Lecavalier.

I don't see much innovation out of Berube, or an ability to make a good team great. Let's face it, when Giroux got going, so did the Flyers.

I'm not ready to say they won in spite of Berube, but I also am not sold they won because of him, either.
- Jsaquella

That would be true of any team. Top players have to play well. There is no doubt in my mind that the Flyers improved as a team after Laviolette was fired due in part to the adjustments that Berube made.

All good players saw their numbers elevated by expansion in the 70s. Orr however won the Calder in a 6 team league in 66-67 and no doubt would have been a star in any era.
- BiggE

It was rigged. His entire career. He was nothing more than an above-average player in an era of diluted talent and goons who paid off every single player/team using his rich daddy's hotel money.

The trap
- jmatchett383

The trap is from 40+ years ago. That's where Jacques Lemaire learned it from playing with the Habs back in the 1950's.

The trap is from 40+ years ago. That's where Jacques Lemaire learned it from playing with the Habs back in the 1950's.
- MJL

And he employed/perfected it years later as a head coach when no one else in the league used it. Whether or not the trap itsels was innovative doesn't matter, as the employment of a system can be innovative in and of itself.

I'm right.

Innovation is a poor choice of words. I didn't see a ton of creativity is a better way to put my feelings. Accountability didn't run up and down the line up evenly, a lot of conservative line up choices that ended up being changed after guys were ineffective, failed to find an effective spot for Lecavalier.
- Jsaquella

So basically, you're saying that Downie happened?

Eh... I use that to abuse the editor of my paper who is a huge Brooooons fan. I don't know what made me post it today. I don't actually ascribe to the theory.
- mayorofangrytown

Well the theory has merit. For example, does Phil Esposito put 76 goals and 152 points in 70-71 if the NHL was still a 6 team league?

The answer is no, but, if he's playing on a team with Cashman, Hodge and most importantly Orr, he maybe puts up 50 and 100 which would be fantastic numbers in a 6 team league.

Another way to look at it is which current Flyers would be in the NHL if there were only 6 teams:
Forwards: Giroux and Voracek for sure, Simmonds as a 4th line energy guy and maybe Couturier as a 4th line PK specialist. Matt Read, cause he can play all forward positions might squeeze in as a spare forward.

D: Coburn for sure, and maybe AMac sneaks in as a 7th man or Streit as a 3rd pair pp specialist

G: no one. Mason would be a borderline backup at best in a 6 team league